[[email protected]]

On 2008-08-30 (ScottDorsey) said:
The real stupidity of the ruling, however, will
be seen in how widely it will be ignored.
snippage
The problem is that when the frequencies get reallocated, they are
going to be reallocated to stations who will transmit on them. You
might be able to get away with using them in some places, but I
would not want to depend on them for reliable communication.
Some folks HAVE been testing existing wireless microphone systems on
occupied ATV channels, and it kind of works although the usable
range is reduced. Whether it is a minor or substantial reduction
appears to be still under debate.
ANd if i've got paying customers depending on reliability of
wireless devices I want to give those paying customers that
for which they paid, which is reliability. I'm glad I"m in
a facet of the business where if folks are using wireless
others will do the providing. I"ve got enough overhead
thank you g.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Philip Perkins]

On Aug 30, 7:39 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Philip Perkins wrote:

No, Scott, it was not enough. This whole argument that everyone
should have known the laws and that they need to download Sennheiser's
alloc chart (not, by the way, available during the Reagan admin) is
specious. It ignores what is actually going on in the lives of
American citizens and several industries that employ large numbers of
people TODAY, not a nebulous promise of some new services and
businesses that may or may not happen or employ Americans at all, as
well as several decades of willful ignorance by the FCC.

Have you been reading ANY of the technical press for the past seven years?
Everybody has had article after article about it until we have all been
completely sick of the subject.

If you don't know that big UHF chunks are going away, you have had your
head in the sand for a long, long time.

If they
cared about the specific usage of the band then they should have
publicized their rulings and notified the manufacturers, the movie
producers, the sound companies etc. over the last 30 years.

They DID. Where were you? Don't you read Millimeter, or Live Sound,
Mix or Recording?

It's not 30 years, though.... the current change was announced only
seven years ago.

In the past thirty years there HAVE been changes to allowable wireless
allocations, but they have mostly had to do with low band VHF stuff.

The cat's
out of the bag, and millions of wireless users could care less about
the FCC's ruling and will not comply. Meanwhile, there was NEVER any
notion or warning about making a specific band's use specifically
illegal.

Okay, let me explain this to you if you don't already get it: where
RF allocations are concerned, everything not specifically permitted
is not allowed.

That is, you MUST have a license of some sort to transmit anywhere
EXCEPT in a couple ISM "freebands," on the citizens band, and on
bands at very low power as specifically authorized under part 15.
If you do not have a license and you are putting out enough power to
be received across the room, you either need to be in an ISM band
or you are operating illegally.

There are no exceptions to this. The FCC doesn't enforce it.... hell
there are touch lamps at Wal-Mart that spew broadband trash all over
the HF bands at higher levels that wireless microphones put out. But
it's not legal.

That ruling smacks of favoritism for a specific group--the
TV broadcasters never asked for such a ruling. I do not understand
why you have decided to align yourself with a group of people who
believe that its ok to run a lot of people's businesses over in
pursuit of new enterprises whose benefit to the public has not been
demonstrated at all.

I am not aligned with anyone. I am telling you what the law is. I
make no value judgement about whether it's a good law or a bad law,
but this is what the law is.

The allocations changed, and a whole hell of a lot of effort was put
into making sure everybody knew about the changed allocations. If
you have gone seven years without hearing about it, you cannot blame
the FCC for that.

The real stupidity of the ruling, however, will
be seen in how widely it will be ignored. Maybe you should rent some
billboard space so you can tell the 99% of wireless users out there
who don't read these forums that they have no right to use their gear
and will be breaking the law if they do use it. Make sure to put your
email address on there too so you can repeat your same argument to
them.

The problem is that when the frequencies get reallocated, they are going
to be reallocated to stations who will transmit on them. You might be
able to get away with using them in some places, but I would not want
to depend on them for reliable communication.

Some folks HAVE been testing existing wireless microphone systems on
occupied ATV channels, and it kind of works although the usable range
is reduced. Whether it is a minor or substantial reduction appears to
be still under debate.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Oh I think I do get it, and I do read. I didn't read anywhere about a
specific ruling concerning the band above 700 MHz until they made it.
Again, why a specific ruling for this band? As for what will
ultimately decided to be legal or allowable or just continues to occur
in any case no matter what the FCC thinks, maybe we'll "let the market
decide". The hassle over this issue, esp the next step the big
tech companies want to take in which they get to monetize all
available spectrum, has just begun. Rulings get made, rulings can be
changed. Stay tuned.

Philip Perkins

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 31/08/08 6:31, in article
, "Philip
Perkins" wrote:

(...)

Oh I think I do get it, and I do read. I didn't read anywhere about a
specific ruling concerning the band above 700 MHz until they made it.
Again, why a specific ruling for this band?

Why? Apart from the DTV transition, somebody called PISC (Public Interest
Spectrum Coalition) complained and made a petition, alleging that microphone
manufacturers "have violated the Commission's rules by marketing and selling
equipment (...) to the general public (...) and deceiving the public as to
the requirement for a Commission license (...)". See the "Background"
section in the FCC 08-188 document.

PISC also petitions for the creation of a new "General Wireless Microphone
Service". Oh, and the chairman of this "public interest group" is the CEO of
Google, Eric Schmidt.

Draw your own conclusions.

--
Joe Kotroczo

[Mike Rivers]

Philip Perkins wrote:

in any case no matter what the FCC thinks, maybe we'll "let the market
decide". The hassle over this issue, esp the next step the big
tech companies want to take in which they get to monetize all
available spectrum, has just begun. Rulings get made, rulings can be
changed. Stay tuned.

The market can decide to use the "illegal" bands, but if something legal
moves in there, they won't have much success, and they won't have the
FCC to complain to about interference, even if the FCC would do anything
about it.

There are (the usual) two kinds of people in the world. If your
PROFESSIONAL WORK involves wireless mics, you can't have had your head
buried in the sand for the past seven years. You would have been looking
around to see what the manufacturers are offering to solve the problems
that you would no doubt be encountering more often as the spectrum gets
more crowded and EMI-radiating devices proliferate. So surely you would
have heard that it's time to update your gear if it's 20 years old.

On the other hand, if you're a single user who buys one wireless mic
setup for your amateur karaoke rig, and you bought the cheapest one you
could fine, I can see that you might not get the word. Sorry 'bout that.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

Philip Perkins wrote:
Oh I think I do get it, and I do read. I didn't read anywhere about a
specific ruling concerning the band above 700 MHz until they made it.
Again, why a specific ruling for this band?

If you read the plan that came out in 2002, you'll see that the thing
happens in stages. So far we have lost two big chunks out of the UHF TV
band (not counting the original loss of 70-83 back in the eighties, and
the loss of channel 37 in the sixties). This is the third one to go away.
Each time a chunk goes away, there's a specific ruling because there is
a specific allocation change.

As for what will
ultimately decided to be legal or allowable or just continues to occur
in any case no matter what the FCC thinks, maybe we'll "let the market
decide". The hassle over this issue, esp the next step the big
tech companies want to take in which they get to monetize all
available spectrum, has just begun. Rulings get made, rulings can be
changed. Stay tuned.

As I said before, the spectrum was all monetized completely during the
Reagan administration. The whole concept of allocating spectrum for the
public good is gone; the FCC for more than twenty years now has been
allocating for maximum profit to the government. I think this is a very
bad thing, but there's nothing I can do about it, and I do not have any
illusions that it is going to change.

If you want to use spectrum, you are going to have to pay for it. That's
just the way it is in the post-Reagan world. If you don't pay for it,
don't expect to be able to use it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Brent Lestage]

On Aug 31, 2:43*am, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

Why? Apart from the DTV transition, somebody called PISC (Public Interest
Spectrum Coalition) complained and made a petition, alleging that microphone
manufacturers "have violated the Commission's rules by marketing and selling
equipment (...) to the general public (...) and deceiving the public as to
the requirement for a Commission license (...)". See the "Background"
section in the FCC 08-188 document.

PISC also petitions for the creation of a new "General Wireless Microphone
Service". Oh, and the chairman of this "public interest group" is the CEO of
Google, Eric Schmidt.

Draw your own conclusions.

This, my friends, is an outrage! It's this kind of pandering to, self-
serving conflicts of interest that will make me flaunt my illegal
devices of the faces of these dill weeds. This PISC bull**** has got
to be exposed for what it is and the ruling must be changed. Public
interest, my arse.
--
B

[Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion]

On Aug 31, 7:35*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Philip Perkins wrote:
in any case no matter what the FCC thinks, maybe we'll "let the market
decide". *The hassle over this issue, esp the next step the big
tech companies want to take in which they get to monetize all
available spectrum, has just begun. *Rulings get made, rulings can be
changed. Stay tuned.

The market can decide to use the "illegal" bands, but if something legal
moves in there, they won't have much success, and they won't have the
FCC to complain to about interference, even if the FCC would do anything
about it.

There are (the usual) two kinds of people in the world. If your
PROFESSIONAL WORK involves wireless mics, you can't have had your head
buried in the sand for the past seven years. You would have been looking
around to see what the manufacturers are offering to solve the problems
that you would no doubt be encountering more often as the spectrum gets
more crowded and EMI-radiating devices proliferate. So surely you would
have heard that it's time to update your gear if it's 20 years old.

On the other hand, if you're a single user who buys one wireless mic
setup for your amateur karaoke rig, and you bought the cheapest one you
could fine, I can see that you might not get the word. Sorry 'bout that.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

I 'm just surprised that our options at the professional
level seem to be near zero. Mics in the cordless phone band?
I would like to see some products that address the
problem of freq. allocation change, and some licensing
protocols that actually accept that more than broadcasters
and movie production companies use wireless audio in
their day to day operations. I know the manufacturers
are out there lobbying to preserve their businesses,
but the lure of big money for spectrum chunks sort
of reminds me of Music Man, there's TROUBLE,
but the spelling changed after that to F-C-C.

[Darrell Henke]

On Aug 30, 6:57*am, Brent Lestage wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:07*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

You talkin to me? *Its not "my" FCC. Nor my policy.
I'm in the same sinking boat with everyone else here.
You're the one who made a pathetic attempt to make it
some sort of political case. *Lets stick to the technical
issues and leave the politics to some other forum, shall we?

If you're in the same sinking boat, then why keep letting more bilge
water in? Sorry to bring politics to the table, but sometimes it's
hard not to when you see the world around you falling to ****. I do,
however, agree with you Richard (by the way, nice DeNiro comeback)
that this is a technical forum and I have taken this subject way off
topic. My apologies to Darrell who begin this thread.
--
B

And nobody's paying rent for this soap box.
DH

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 31/08/08 16:13, in article
, "Getting
Older and Grumpier Gear Minion" wrote:

(...)
I 'm just surprised that our options at the professional
level seem to be near zero.

Are they? Out of curiosity, I went to the Sennheiser site and had a look at
what frequencies remain available in NYC (which I assume is an area that has
a busy spectrum). Listed as available Sennheiser stock frequencies for the
3000 and 5000 series a
506-512 MHz
590-596 MHz
596-602 MHz
602-608 MHz
674-680 MHz
680-686 MHz

6 blocks. That's not a lot, but more than zero.

And for the Evolution series it lists:
542-548 MHz
638-644 MHz
746-752 MHz
770-776 MHz

And outside the stock Sennheiser freqs, there seems to be yet more available
space.

Seriously: is the situation really as desperate as people make it out to be?


Mics in the cordless phone band?

What's the "cordless phone band"? 2.4 GHz? 5.8 GHz 900 MHz?


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Scott Dorsey]

Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion wrote:
I 'm just surprised that our options at the professional
level seem to be near zero. Mics in the cordless phone band?

There is all the bandwidth you ever want, you just have to pay for it.
Want some 460 MHz business band allocations? Write a check. 150 MHz
business band channels are also available for a fee. Even 800 MHz
land-mobile channels aren't _that_ expensive to purchase.

And you still can use all of the available television channels, if you
are willing to put up with the interference.

Cordless phones all use unlicensed ISM bands, usually either the 49 MHz
freeband, the 900 MHz one, or the 2.4 GHz one. The freebands are bad
places to be, because you MUST accept any interference you receive and
you have no recourse other than to change channels.

I would like to see some products that address the
problem of freq. allocation change, and some licensing
protocols that actually accept that more than broadcasters
and movie production companies use wireless audio in
their day to day operations.

The products are coming out... Sennheiser was probably first in line,
but there are even folks out there now selling digital wireless systems
using the ISM bands.

There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend $100
or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel, and get the system
recrystalled for the business band, either. If you do this, you have
bandwidth that you have paid for, that you have exclusive use of, and you
have the right to kick anyone else off of it.

I know the manufacturers
are out there lobbying to preserve their businesses,
but the lure of big money for spectrum chunks sort
of reminds me of Music Man, there's TROUBLE,
but the spelling changed after that to F-C-C.

The FCC is in business to make money for itself, and if the easiest way
for them to do that is to make money for big businesses, they will do
that. This is the consequence of the major shift made in the eighties.
But it's not going to change, and folks just need to accept it. The FCC
will do anything they can to get money, and it just takes money to get
them to do what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Philip Perkins]

On Aug 31, 6:09 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Philip Perkins wrote:

Oh I think I do get it, and I do read. I didn't read anywhere about a
specific ruling concerning the band above 700 MHz until they made it.
Again, why a specific ruling for this band?

If you read the plan that came out in 2002, you'll see that the thing
happens in stages. So far we have lost two big chunks out of the UHF TV
band (not counting the original loss of 70-83 back in the eighties, and
the loss of channel 37 in the sixties). This is the third one to go away.
Each time a chunk goes away, there's a specific ruling because there is
a specific allocation change.

As for what will
ultimately decided to be legal or allowable or just continues to occur
in any case no matter what the FCC thinks, maybe we'll "let the market
decide". The hassle over this issue, esp the next step the big
tech companies want to take in which they get to monetize all
available spectrum, has just begun. Rulings get made, rulings can be
changed. Stay tuned.

As I said before, the spectrum was all monetized completely during the
Reagan administration. The whole concept of allocating spectrum for the
public good is gone; the FCC for more than twenty years now has been
allocating for maximum profit to the government. I think this is a very
bad thing, but there's nothing I can do about it, and I do not have any
illusions that it is going to change.

If you want to use spectrum, you are going to have to pay for it. That's
just the way it is in the post-Reagan world. If you don't pay for it,
don't expect to be able to use it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Stay tuned, Scott. There are a lot more wireless users than the FCC
thinks. I have no doubt that people like me will continue to be
variously hosed by all this, but also think that things are not going
to exactly turn out as the big tech biz types think they will either.
Ownership, of property or anything else does not preclude public input
into how you use your property.

Philip Perkins

[Mike Rivers]

Philip Perkins wrote:

Stay tuned, Scott. There are a lot more wireless users than the FCC
thinks. I have no doubt that people like me will continue to be
variously hosed by all this

Write your congressman. Tell him your problem. Don't tell him what you
think everyone else's problem is, tell him what YOUR problem is. You
have a wireless mic that you bought 10 years ago for what you thought
was a reasonable amount of money and now you have to abandon it and
either do without or buy a new one.

I suppose I didn't HAVE to abandon my dot matrix printers or CRT
monitors or 8086 computers either, but live goes on.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On 2008-08-31 (ScottDorsey) said:
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend
$100 or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel, and
get the system recrystalled for the business band, either. If you
do this, you have bandwidth that you have paid for, that you have
exclusive use of, and you have the right to kick anyone else off of
it.
True enough. Part of the problem for those doing live
performance events with wireless is all the performers who
think they need wireless who could really be served just as
well with an umbilical. THe drummer or keyboard player
doesn't need wireless iem. Many others don't need or could
be as well served by staying with the umbilical.

The FCC is in business to make money for itself, and if the easiest
way for them to do that is to make money for big businesses, they
will do that. This is the consequence of the major shift made in
the eighties. But it's not going to change, and folks just need to
accept it. The FCC will do anything they can to get money, and it
just takes money to get them to do what you want.
True, and folks who want all this wireless equipment for
live entertainment etc. are going to have to reach into
their pockets and pony up the bucks. AFter all, we have the
best government money can buy, at least for those with the
big money to pay for it.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 31/08/08 19:37, in article
, "Philip
Perkins" wrote:

(...)

Stay tuned, Scott. There are a lot more wireless users than the FCC
thinks.

Well, what I find interesting is that PISC is _not_ lobbying against the
users, but instead they are putting the wireless microphone manufacturers in
a bad light.

To quote PISC again: "certain manufacturers of wireless microphones
(...) have violated the Commission's rules by marketing and selling
equipment (...) to the general public (...) and deceiving the public as to
the requirement for a Commission license (...)".

And they propose the creation of "a new General Wireless Microphone Service
(GWMS)". Makes me wonder what the story is behind that.



See also:
"Exactly Who Is Behind Google¹s Grab for ³White Space²? "
http://www.stage-directions.com/inde...task=view&id=1
027&Itemid=40

"Google's White-Space Fixation"
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0522_623138_pa
ge_2.htm

And there's a lot of PISC propaganda he
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/content/23/all
Now, who exactly is the "New America Foundation"?

--
Joe Kotroczo

[Scott Dorsey]

Joe Kotroczo wrote:
Well, what I find interesting is that PISC is _not_ lobbying against the
users, but instead they are putting the wireless microphone manufacturers in
a bad light.

To quote PISC again: "certain manufacturers of wireless microphones
(...) have violated the Commission's rules by marketing and selling
equipment (...) to the general public (...) and deceiving the public as to
the requirement for a Commission license (...)".

I have to admit that this is definitely the case. Used to be you would
buy a wireless system and it would come with the licensing form. You'd
write a check and send it off. Too often the systems do not come with the
paperwork today, and the manufacturers don't tell the buyers that they need
to license them.

And they propose the creation of "a new General Wireless Microphone Service
(GWMS)". Makes me wonder what the story is behind that.

That really is the only way to make the thing legal, and to make it legal
for people who could not quality for the broadcast auxiliary service.
Create a specific license category for wireless microphones. This could
either have a new frequency allocation given to it, or it could use the
existing TV channels on a shared basis as the broadcast auxiliary service
does.

See also:
"Exactly Who Is Behind Google¹s Grab for ³White Space²? "
http://www.stage-directions.com/inde...task=view&id=1
027&Itemid=40

"Google's White-Space Fixation"
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0522_623138_pa
ge_2.htm

And there's a lot of PISC propaganda he
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/content/23/all
Now, who exactly is the "New America Foundation"?

I'm not really sure why Google even cares about the 700 MC allocation,
because it really isn't wide enough for much in the way of broadband digital
delivery. But they seem to be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 31/08/08 22:14, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

Joe Kotroczo wrote:
(...)
And they propose the creation of "a new General Wireless Microphone Service
(GWMS)". Makes me wonder what the story is behind that.

That really is the only way to make the thing legal, and to make it legal
for people who could not quality for the broadcast auxiliary service.
Create a specific license category for wireless microphones. This could
either have a new frequency allocation given to it, or it could use the
existing TV channels on a shared basis as the broadcast auxiliary service
does.

What I find confusing is the way they talk about a "new service". It's not
really clear what exactly they have in mind. A paying service? A new
hardware standard?


I know at least one European country where they solved the problem by simply
declaring a little piece of spectrum to be reserved specifically for
wireless mics, no license required. A bit along the lines of "there's your
playground, now shut up and don't bother us".


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Scott Dorsey]

Joe Kotroczo wrote:

What I find confusing is the way they talk about a "new service". It's not
really clear what exactly they have in mind. A paying service? A new
hardware standard?

A different class of license. Strictly speaking, a service is actually a
set of different license classes... for example, a station in the FM
broadcast service can have a Class A, B, or C license depending on power
level, and a station in the amateur radio service can have a Technician,
General, or Extra license, each of which offers slightly different
privileges.

Each service has their own rules and regulations, and when you get a license,
that license is specific to that service. Each service has specific
frequencies allocated to it, and you may or may not require additional
allocations within that. (For example, an amateur license is a station
license that allows you to transmit on any frequency with any modulation
that your license class allows, but a land-mobile license is both a
station license and a frequency allocation and allows you to transmit only
on the frequencies specifically allocated for your license).

So, the idea is that instead of considering wireless microphones to be
part of the broadcast auxiliary service, they will be moved to a brand
new service. That way at least the laws pertaining to them will be
a little clearer and they will be laid out in a specific section of the
regulations.

I know at least one European country where they solved the problem by simply
declaring a little piece of spectrum to be reserved specifically for
wireless mics, no license required. A bit along the lines of "there's your
playground, now shut up and don't bother us".

This doesn't solve the problem at all. When I want to use a frequency,
but you're using the frequency, who gives it up? If I want a block of
100 nearby frequencies for a big event (which sadly is common here),
and a TV crew shows up and THEY want to use some of those frequencies,
who has the actual right to them?

That's why freeband allocations are bad news in the US. If you use a
freeband channel, you have to accept whatever interference exists, and
you have no more right to a frequency than anyone else. It works well
when the usage is low, but it falls apart when the usage increases.

Some folks have claimed spread spectrum modulation would be the salvation
for the whole thing, but it doesn't really solve anything. It just trades
one set of frequency allocation issues for another set.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
set of different license classes... for example, a station in the FM
broadcast service can have a Class A, B, or C license depending on power
level, and a station in the amateur radio service can have a Technician,
General, or Extra license, each of which offers slightly different
privileges.

Err.... an amateur license is an OPERATOR'S license... the station is
unlicensed and not type accepted and frequencies are not specifically
allocated to the licensee. But it's not a station license. Oops.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend $100
or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel,

So you say they are auctioning off individual channels on the
ordrer of $100 each? Where? If that were the case a bunch of
pro users could band together into a co-op and buy several
channels.

.... If you do this, you have bandwidth that you have paid for, that you
have exclusive use of, and you have the right to kick anyone else off of
it.

THe right to kick anyone else off depends on the cooperation of the
FCC. That doesn't seem likely. At least not for an in idividual wireless
mic channel licencee. And the interfering parties know that.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 31, 11:04 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Philip Perkins wrote:
Stay tuned, Scott. There are a lot more wireless users than the FCC
thinks. I have no doubt that people like me will continue to be
variously hosed by all this

Write your congressman. Tell him your problem. Don't tell him what you
think everyone else's problem is, tell him what YOUR problem is. You
have a wireless mic that you bought 10 years ago for what you thought
was a reasonable amount of money and now you have to abandon it and
either do without or buy a new one.

I suppose I didn't HAVE to abandon my dot matrix printers or CRT
monitors or 8086 computers either, but live goes on.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

I'm not talking about 10 year old equipment. I am ****ed about the
loss of the 700MHz band, but that has been a long time coming (but not
a specific ruling on just that band--why did we need that again?).
I have done what can about getting out of the way, and have invested
in wireless gear in 4 different other bands to increase my chances of
survival in the short term. All of this gear is less than a few years
old. What I'm really on about is the notion that everyone is going to
have to rebuy all their wireless gear again because some big tech
companies are going to insist that whatever spectrum is left after the
auctions is going to be left "free", by which they mean available for
their use for profit without them having to buy that space. They say
that it should be "shared" knowing full well that their technology
will simply run over ours. To try to sell their point they are making
a lot of noise about the illegality of wireless mic sales, a
smokescreen and a distraction from what we really SHOULD be discussing
which is how the
spectrum left can be used in such a way that doesn't hamstring 2 or 3
industries. These companies tried to pull a fast one by attempting to
fast track the start of the use of their new "white-space" devices
without much of any testing, so let's say I find their tactics and
statements less than trustworthy. This is why I'm saying we should
stay tuned--the FCC is going to end up backtracking and delaying once
the public finds out what they will be losing.

Philip Perkins

[Carey Carlan]

" wrote in news:a656a5df-3ca2-4288-
:

What I'm really on about is the notion that everyone is going to
have to rebuy all their wireless gear again ...

Part of that is buying from a reputable firm. Lectrosonic will change the
frequency on their gear--sometimes for free.

When I was buying my wireless gear a couple of years ago, they specifically
directed me away from the 700 mHz band.

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I'm not really sure why Google even cares about the 700 MC allocation,
because it really isn't wide enough for much in the way of broadband digital
delivery. But they seem to be.

I've always wondered why Google was getting involved in this battle. Is
there some wireless mic technology for computers, maybe wireless
headsets used for on-line chat or Internet telephony that they plan to
promote? If that's the case, they want to be sure that there will be
(working) hardware available to support it and that the users won't have
ot buy anything else (like a license) after buying the headset and
paying the subscription fee for the Google-supported service.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

This doesn't solve the problem at all. When I want to use a frequency,
but you're using the frequency, who gives it up? If I want a block of
100 nearby frequencies for a big event (which sadly is common here),
and a TV crew shows up and THEY want to use some of those frequencies,
who has the actual right to them?

Isn't that what the "white space" rule (if it's really a rule) is about?
Essentially first-come-first-served. Before using a frequency, you have
to listen on that frequency. If it's free, you can use it. If someone
else is using it, you have to look elsewhere. I seem to recall something
about a beacon, which was intended to reserve a frequency during down
time. That sounds like something that a show or TV crew could afford and
an individual user or small club couldn't.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On 2008-08-31 said:
What I'm really on about is the
notion that everyone is going to have to rebuy all their wireless
gear again because some big tech companies are going to insist that
whatever spectrum is left after the auctions is going to be left
"free", by which they mean available for their use for profit
without them having to buy that space. They say that it should be
"shared" knowing full well that their technology will simply run
over ours. To try to sell their point they are making a lot of
noise about the illegality of wireless mic sales, a smokescreen and
a distraction from what we really SHOULD be discussing which is how
the spectrum left can be used in such a way that doesn't hamstring
2 or 3 industries. These companies tried to pull a fast one by
attempting to fast track the start of the use of their new
"white-space" devices without much of any testing, so let's say I
find their tactics and statements less than trustworthy. This is
why I'm saying we should stay tuned--the FCC is going to end up
backtracking and delaying once the public finds out what they will
be losing.
DO you think the FCC really cares about what the public
thinks? DO you think the public really understands or
cares?

Problem numero uno: THe FCC isn't blessed with technically
savvy individuals these days. THEy live by the golden rule,
he who has gold makes the rules.


AS for the public, the average consumer doesn't understand
the technology he/she uses every day, and doesn't give a
rat's rear end so long as it works. Actually educating
himself on the issues and the trade offs would require
him/her to put down the remote and the Pabst and do some
serious thinking.

tHat's how we arrived where we are in the first place as a
country and a society.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[jakdedert]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend $100
or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel, and get the system
recrystalled for the business band, either. If you do this, you have
bandwidth that you have paid for, that you have exclusive use of, and you
have the right to kick anyone else off of it.

The 'right to kick anyone else off of it.'? How do you propose to do
that? Track them down with a sniffer and accost them with a firearm?
Complain to the FCC? Call the local police?

Just because you have the legal 'right' doesn't mean that it's feasible.
In any case, it's small consolation that you have the 'right' when
your live production has just been ruined by an unlicensed operator.
Explaining to your client how you had the 'right' to use that spectrum
is going to be difficult if not impossible. All they're going to know
is that their provider was unable to...provide.

snip

jak

[jakdedert]

wrote:
On 2008-08-31 (ScottDorsey) said:
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend
$100 or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel, and
get the system recrystalled for the business band, either. If you
do this, you have bandwidth that you have paid for, that you have
exclusive use of, and you have the right to kick anyone else off of
it.
True enough. Part of the problem for those doing live
performance events with wireless is all the performers who
think they need wireless who could really be served just as
well with an umbilical. THe drummer or keyboard player
doesn't need wireless iem. Many others don't need or could
be as well served by staying with the umbilical.

The FCC is in business to make money for itself, and if the easiest
way for them to do that is to make money for big businesses, they
will do that. This is the consequence of the major shift made in
the eighties. But it's not going to change, and folks just need to
accept it. The FCC will do anything they can to get money, and it
just takes money to get them to do what you want.
True, and folks who want all this wireless equipment for
live entertainment etc. are going to have to reach into
their pockets and pony up the bucks. AFter all, we have the
best government money can buy, at least for those with the
big money to pay for it.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider


I just got the tech requirements for the tour I'm starting at the end of
the week. The client has spec'd--for ten breakout rooms--four channels
of RF each. Those 40 channels are in addition to the 12 channels spec'd
for the General Session...58 channels in all.

While these meetings are important to their organizers--and of course
important to me as the guy to whom they will look if something goes
wrong--they don't amount to much in terms of the productions which are
put on every day. I'd call it a small to middle sized production; but
it's illustrative of the scope of RF spectrum usage in my field of
industrial theater. I've crewed much larger productions, at least with
respect to number of breakouts...some meetings have 50 or more separate,
simultaneous breakout meetings.

In addition to making sure these frequencies are all coordinated with
each other; I've got to make sure we coordinate with the various venues
(six altogether), which all use RF on a daily basis...not to mention
adjacent venues. At only a couple of those venues will our show even be
'the' major event scheduled at the same time.

Clients have come to expect RF mics available, limited by only what they
are willing to pay. Given that professional transmitter/receiver combos
go for over two grand, my client has asked for well over a $100 thousand
dollars worth of gear...much of which has just been obsoleted by this
FCC move.

They don't want to hear about FCC rulings. They just want to be able to
strap on a lav (or pick up a handheld--part of the requirement is that
either will be available for each channel) and start talking with no
interference.

jak

[jakdedert]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip

This doesn't solve the problem at all. When I want to use a frequency,
but you're using the frequency, who gives it up? If I want a block of
100 nearby frequencies for a big event (which sadly is common here),
and a TV crew shows up and THEY want to use some of those frequencies,
who has the actual right to them?

100 frequencies is trivial. See my earlier post for a 'real world'
example. I reiterate, this is a minor show in the grand scheme of
things, with a requirement of 'only' 58 channels. This, in addition to
the amount of RF floating around from the various other simultaneous
events in the same and adjacent venues. I don't expect that we'll
actually use all 58 channels at any given time; but I do have to insure
that they are instantly and constantly available.

jak

That's why freeband allocations are bad news in the US. If you use a
freeband channel, you have to accept whatever interference exists, and
you have no more right to a frequency than anyone else. It works well
when the usage is low, but it falls apart when the usage increases.

Some folks have claimed spread spectrum modulation would be the salvation
for the whole thing, but it doesn't really solve anything. It just trades
one set of frequency allocation issues for another set.
--scott

[jakdedert]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend $100
or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel,

So you say they are auctioning off individual channels on the
ordrer of $100 each? Where? If that were the case a bunch of
pro users could band together into a co-op and buy several
channels.

What would you get for your $100? The right to use a particular
frequency, yes; but where? I'm about to cart 48 channels of wireless
mics around the country. What would my nearly $5,000 entitle me to do?
Wouldn't the license have to have specific geographical stipulations
to be valid? How would that benefit national productions? In order to
carry a bunch of equipment from city to city, it appears that a company
would either have to purchase multiple licenses, or contract equipment
in each particular venue from licensed providers.


.... If you do this, you have bandwidth that you have paid for, that you
have exclusive use of, and you have the right to kick anyone else off of
it.

THe right to kick anyone else off depends on the cooperation of the
FCC. That doesn't seem likely. At least not for an in idividual wireless
mic channel licencee. And the interfering parties know that.

Easy to say...much harder (if not practically impossible) in practice.
In practice, there are way more transmitters out there than available
channels. It's been possible up to now, to simply scan the available
channels and pick ones which are open. If a problem appears, pick
another. With licensing for particular channels being the standard,
that option goes away.

Yeah, you can take some unspecified 'action' against poachers, but while
that's happening, your multi-million dollar event is tanking...along
with your reputation for seamless productions.

jak

[Mike Rivers]

jakdedert wrote:
I just got the tech requirements for the tour I'm starting at the end of
the week. The client has spec'd--for ten breakout rooms--four channels
of RF each. Those 40 channels are in addition to the 12 channels spec'd
for the General Session...58 channels in all.

While these meetings are important to their organizers--and of course
important to me as the guy to whom they will look if something goes
wrong--they don't amount to much in terms of the productions which are
put on every day.

Oh, I dunno. I wouldn't call 56 simultaneous wireless mics a
run-of-the-mill everyday production. Not when you compare it to the few
thousand karaoke bars and lounge lizards with one wireless mic per
venue. Unless you're being VERY well paid for this, I'd ask the producer
how many wireless mics he REALLY needs and perhaps remind him of the
rules that are in transition and that you'd rather provide reliability
(and maybe a dozen wireless mics) than see the show get into trouble.
But if you're paid at a level for dealing with that problem, by all
means, deal with it. It's your job. And clearly, I don't have your
perspective on this corner of the industry. (I don't do meetings)

Clients have come to expect RF mics available, limited by only what they
are willing to pay.

Out of curiosity, from your standpoint, does it pay? Are you making more
money with a large number of wireless mics than if you did the show
wired with a few wireless mics and a few long cables? If it's a meeting
with an attendance of 10,000, I suppose I could see a large number of
wireless mics, where you'd have monitors passing several mics to the
audience members. But the shirts up front probably don't need more than
one wireless. But again, it's not my job, that's just how I'd approach
it. I might not get much work, but then maybe I'd enjoy more of what I
did get.

Given that professional transmitter/receiver combos
go for over two grand, my client has asked for well over a $100 thousand
dollars worth of gear...much of which has just been obsoleted by this
FCC move.

Would you (are/did you) purchase it just for this gig? If so, take his
$100K and get what you need. If he expects you to have them on hand and
is paying you on that basis, well, that's not at all good for business.
I suppose my approach would be to rent the mics from someone who did
make the investment (and presumably made it wisely so that he can keep
his mics updated until they pay for themselves) and pass on the rental
cost. If that's too much money for your client, then he doesn't have a
good feeling for what it costs to get what he wants. It's your job to
educate him. Clients who think they can continue getting what they used
to get for the price they used to pay in a world where the technology
they want is changing fast aren't very good clients - or it's not a good
business to be in, But that doesn't solve your problem.

They don't want to hear about FCC rulings. They just want to be able to
strap on a lav (or pick up a handheld--part of the requirement is that
either will be available for each channel) and start talking with no
interference.

And they can, if they pay enough for it. Your real problem isn't about
regulations or technology, it's about that you don't have enough money
to do what your client wants for what he expects to pay. And if you do,
well then hail the FCC! It helps keep companies like Sony, Audio
Technica, Shure, Sennheiser, and Lectrosonic in business.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

Jack wrote:

True enough. Part of the problem for those doing live
performance events with wireless is all the performers who
think they need wireless who could really be served just as
well with an umbilical. THe drummer or keyboard player
doesn't need wireless iem. Many others don't need or could
be as well served by staying with the umbilical.
snippage

I just got the tech requirements for the tour I'm starting at the
end of the week. The client has spec'd--for ten breakout
rooms--four channels of RF each. Those 40 channels are in addition
to the 12 channels spec'd for the General Session...58 channels in
all.
While these meetings are important to their organizers--and of
course important to me as the guy to whom they will look if
something goes wrong--they don't amount to much in terms of the
productions which are put on every day. I'd call it a small to
middle sized production; but it's illustrative of the scope of RF
spectrum usage in my field of industrial theater. I've crewed much
larger productions, at least with respect to number of breakouts...
some meetings have 50 or more separate, simultaneous breakout
meetings.
In addition to making sure these frequencies are all coordinated
with each other; I've got to make sure we coordinate with the

Believe me I've an unhderstanding of what you're going
through, and am glad I"m in the remote audio business. IN
this corner of the audio production world if the clients
want wireless I'll let the sr folks provide them, take my
split from theirs and be happy.

tHis is why I've commented elsewhere in this thread that
those of us in the industry have a big job of public
education in front of us.

Regards,





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Scott Dorsey]

jakdedert wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend $100
or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel, and get the system
recrystalled for the business band, either. If you do this, you have
bandwidth that you have paid for, that you have exclusive use of, and you
have the right to kick anyone else off of it.

The 'right to kick anyone else off of it.'? How do you propose to do
that? Track them down with a sniffer and accost them with a firearm?
Complain to the FCC? Call the local police?

Well, at most big events you complain to the frequency coordinator and
let him worry about it. But I have tracked plenty of unauthorized
users down with a signal sniffer before.

Just because you have the legal 'right' doesn't mean that it's feasible.
In any case, it's small consolation that you have the 'right' when
your live production has just been ruined by an unlicensed operator.
Explaining to your client how you had the 'right' to use that spectrum
is going to be difficult if not impossible. All they're going to know
is that their provider was unable to...provide.

Yes, this is true. But it's MORE than you'd get in a freeband.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jakdedert wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend $100
or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel,

So you say they are auctioning off individual channels on the
ordrer of $100 each? Where? If that were the case a bunch of
pro users could band together into a co-op and buy several
channels.

What would you get for your $100? The right to use a particular
frequency, yes; but where? I'm about to cart 48 channels of wireless
mics around the country. What would my nearly $5,000 entitle me to do?

Depends. Sometimes it's for the whole country, sometimes it's for a
small region. The larger the area, the more an exclusive frequency is
going to cost you, for the most part.

Wouldn't the license have to have specific geographical stipulations
to be valid? How would that benefit national productions? In order to
carry a bunch of equipment from city to city, it appears that a company
would either have to purchase multiple licenses, or contract equipment
in each particular venue from licensed providers.

Yes, precisely. That's the way it works right now, too.

Yeah, you can take some unspecified 'action' against poachers, but while
that's happening, your multi-million dollar event is tanking...along
with your reputation for seamless productions.

Just like we deal with today on a regular basis, yes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
jakdedert wrote:
Just because you have the legal 'right' doesn't mean that it's feasible.
In any case, it's small consolation that you have the 'right' when
your live production has just been ruined by an unlicensed operator.
Explaining to your client how you had the 'right' to use that spectrum
is going to be difficult if not impossible. All they're going to know
is that their provider was unable to...provide.

Yes, this is true. But it's MORE than you'd get in a freeband.

Actually LESS.
First, there is no practical, real-world, REAL-TIME way of enforcing
any sort of exclusive license to a channel, even presuming there was
an FCC storefront in the city.

Furthermore, you have screwed yourself by drawing your line in
the sand. You are stuck with "your" channel and can't use it.
You have no frequency agility to find an available channel elsewhere.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 1, 1:20 am, Carey Carlan wrote:
" wrote in news:a656a5df-3ca2-4288-
:

What I'm really on about is the notion that everyone is going to
have to rebuy all their wireless gear again ...

Part of that is buying from a reputable firm. Lectrosonic will change the
frequency on their gear--sometimes for free.

When I was buying my wireless gear a couple of years ago, they specifically
directed me away from the 700 mHz band.

Lectrosonics would specifically NOT change the freq blocks their agile
units until the recent announcement, and then that only covers their
digital radios. I know-- I asked them about this several times over
the last few years. I did have them change freqs on some older radios
back in the day--and it was never for free. How many radios did you
have refreq'ed by Lectro for free?

Philip Perkins

[jakdedert]

Mike Rivers wrote:
jakdedert wrote:
I just got the tech requirements for the tour I'm starting at the end
of the week. The client has spec'd--for ten breakout rooms--four
channels of RF each. Those 40 channels are in addition to the 12
channels spec'd for the General Session...58 channels in all.


First off...I do know what 40 + 12 =...duhh.

While these meetings are important to their organizers--and of course
important to me as the guy to whom they will look if something goes
wrong--they don't amount to much in terms of the productions which are
put on every day.

Oh, I dunno. I wouldn't call 56 simultaneous wireless mics a
run-of-the-mill everyday production. Not when you compare it to the few
thousand karaoke bars and lounge lizards with one wireless mic per
venue. Unless you're being VERY well paid for this, I'd ask the producer
how many wireless mics he REALLY needs and perhaps remind him of the
rules that are in transition and that you'd rather provide reliability
(and maybe a dozen wireless mics) than see the show get into trouble.
But if you're paid at a level for dealing with that problem, by all
means, deal with it. It's your job. And clearly, I don't have your
perspective on this corner of the industry. (I don't do meetings)

I'm not sure that it's all that unusual. 52 channels is spread over 11
different performance areas within the venue. I've seen larger
productions with more mics. I don't know just what is being paid, as
I'm just the coordinator...three or four steps down from the client
(although I 'am' the face they see in practice).

It works like this: Client (multinational corp who needs to hold
regional meetings, to educate their franchisees) hires a company. That
company hires another one (the one who hired me) to develop supporting
media, and provide a design and staffing for the overall
show...including breakouts. Management works with the Education Dept.
of the Client to suss out requirements. My company then hires a
production company who provides some of the personnel, and most of the gear.

Once I get there, all this has been worked out. I just have to deal
with the result. I work with the end-clients personnel and a couple of
local hands to make sure the breakouts are set on schedule and attend
those meetings in order to make sure all goes smoothly. Depending on
the venue, various rooms get set, struck, reset and/or reconfigured,
multiple times over the three-day run of each regional show.

Each room gets four channels of RF (lav and hh mic available for each),
as large a projection screen as will fit, a hookup for computer audio
and AC at the presenters position, two to four speakers on
sticks...everything set, adjusted, taped down; with fresh batteries
daily or as needed.

Clients have come to expect RF mics available, limited by only what
they are willing to pay.

Out of curiosity, from your standpoint, does it pay? Are you making more
money with a large number of wireless mics than if you did the show
wired with a few wireless mics and a few long cables? If it's a meeting
with an attendance of 10,000, I suppose I could see a large number of
wireless mics, where you'd have monitors passing several mics to the
audience members. But the shirts up front probably don't need more than
one wireless. But again, it's not my job, that's just how I'd approach
it. I might not get much work, but then maybe I'd enjoy more of what I
did get.

Yes, I'm well-paid; but I'm still just a peon. I have little to no
input over what gets spec'd. I'm only there to make sure it
happens...seamlessly. I'd be out of a job if I provided a wired mic in
*any* position. Attendance is around a thousand in each city. Some of
the mics do get passed around...and they have to work--every time,
because often I'm not there when that happens. Fortunately, I only do
this for a couple of months out of the year. If I did it all year long
I'm not sure I'd last...but I'd be pretty well-off until I expired.

That said, people do this all the time. It's just not that unusual.

Given that professional transmitter/receiver combos go for over two
grand, my client has asked for well over a $100 thousand dollars worth
of gear...much of which has just been obsoleted by this FCC move.

Would you (are/did you) purchase it just for this gig? If so, take his
$100K and get what you need. If he expects you to have them on hand and
is paying you on that basis, well, that's not at all good for business.
I suppose my approach would be to rent the mics from someone who did
make the investment (and presumably made it wisely so that he can keep
his mics updated until they pay for themselves) and pass on the rental
cost. If that's too much money for your client, then he doesn't have a
good feeling for what it costs to get what he wants. It's your job to
educate him. Clients who think they can continue getting what they used
to get for the price they used to pay in a world where the technology
they want is changing fast aren't very good clients - or it's not a good
business to be in, But that doesn't solve your problem.

We do hire all the gear; but it's still my problem when/if it doesn't
work. One caveat is that the fourth mic in every room is a spare.
The client actually spec'd three per; which doesn't physically work out
all that well for rack-mounted RF receivers. It made more sense to just
rack up the extra receiver than to separate their half-space units.
That said, the fourth one must work...and my experience with this client
is that it will get used--for the same reason Hillary climbed Mt.
Everest....

They don't want to hear about FCC rulings. They just want to be able
to strap on a lav (or pick up a handheld--part of the requirement is
that either will be available for each channel) and start talking with
no interference.

And they can, if they pay enough for it. Your real problem isn't about
regulations or technology, it's about that you don't have enough money
to do what your client wants for what he expects to pay. And if you do,
well then hail the FCC! It helps keep companies like Sony, Audio
Technica, Shure, Sennheiser, and Lectrosonic in business.

As stated, it's not my money. Having said that, my boss will be all
over me about keeping expenses down. If I rack up too much overtime
from my locals, or for myself (or even if I don't); I'll hear about it.

Just facts of life....

jak

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 1/09/08 19:45, in article ,
"jakdedert" wrote:

(..)

I just got the tech requirements for the tour I'm starting at the end of
the week. The client has spec'd--for ten breakout rooms--four channels
of RF each. Those 40 channels are in addition to the 12 channels spec'd
for the General Session...58 channels in all.

Hmm... I think I can see a market for portable faraday cages.

--
Joe Kotroczo

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

I did have them change freqs on some older radios
back in the day--and it was never for free. How many radios did you
have refreq'ed by Lectro for free?

Does it have to be for free? Why? There's no guarantee that they'll work
forever, for whatever reason. I have a couple of devices that were
originally powered by mercury batteries that are no longer serviceable
since the batteries (like your wireless frequencies) are no longer
available. Should I expect the manufacturers (some of which are no
longer in business) to modify or replace my stuff? After a certain
period of time, you just have to accept obsolescence. Sorry if your time
frame doesn't agree with their time frame.

My TV sets are going to be obsolete in a few more months. I can buy
converters, but I can't get them for free.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

jakdedert wrote:

We do hire all the gear; but it's still my problem when/if it doesn't
work.

OK, so it's your responsibility to find a vendor who has gear to rent
that will work. Your job may be more difficult during the transition
period, but those vendors who want to stay in business will eventually
make the investment they need in order to do so, whether it's in
modifications or new equipment. This will probably result in a price
increase to you, which you pass on to the company that hires you.
There's not much you can do about that other than to try to find a
different rental company that you trust. But in your position,
confidence is worth paying for.

One caveat is that the fourth mic in every room is a spare.
The client actually spec'd three per; which doesn't physically work out
all that well for rack-mounted RF receivers. It made more sense to just
rack up the extra receiver than to separate their half-space units. That
said, the fourth one must work...and my experience with this client is
that it will get used--for the same reason Hillary climbed Mt. Everest....

This should go into your proposal - not just passively, but state that
you will be providing four mics based on your experience with previous
events. You shouldn't give away that fourth mic, and the client needs
some way to compare your proposal with others he might be considering.

As stated, it's not my money. Having said that, my boss will be all
over me about keeping expenses down. If I rack up too much overtime
from my locals, or for myself (or even if I don't); I'll hear about it.

Everybody wants discounts. Everybody wants perfect performance. Nobody
likes risks. Having spent many years buying stuff for the Government
(the customer of your worst dreams) I've sent a lot of time justifying
buying from someone other than the lowest bidder, but I need to see some
reason to do so. If I have a good proposal that I can believe, and it
offers advantages over the lowest bidder, I'll support it. There are
some places where I can get away with the cheapest, but sometimes you
can't, and you may have to convince others of what's the best deal.
That's the sort of business you're in, and you can't make one investment
and assume it will last you for life.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
There's no reason you can't take your 30-year-old Vega pack, spend $100
or so at auction for exclusive use of a VHF-HI channel,

So you say they are auctioning off individual channels on the
ordrer of $100 each? Where? If that were the case a bunch of
pro users could band together into a co-op and buy several
channels.

If you want something in the 460 Mhz business band, you can apply for
it. You need to get an FCC registration number at
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/licManager/login.jsp and then
apply for a new license.

If there is no contention for the channel you want, it doesn't even go
up for auction. If there is contention (and if you want a nationwide
one), you may have to wait a good while before it can be auctioned.

.... If you do this, you have bandwidth that you have paid for, that you
have exclusive use of, and you have the right to kick anyone else off of
it.

THe right to kick anyone else off depends on the cooperation of the
FCC. That doesn't seem likely. At least not for an in idividual wireless
mic channel licencee. And the interfering parties know that.

I dunno, usually getting a bunch of punk rockers showing up at the
aerobics class with the interfering microphone would seem to be
effective. It's amazing what leather jackets and some metal studs do
for folks' attitudes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

This doesn't solve the problem at all. When I want to use a frequency,
but you're using the frequency, who gives it up? If I want a block of
100 nearby frequencies for a big event (which sadly is common here),
and a TV crew shows up and THEY want to use some of those frequencies,
who has the actual right to them?

Isn't that what the "white space" rule (if it's really a rule) is about?
Essentially first-come-first-served. Before using a frequency, you have
to listen on that frequency. If it's free, you can use it. If someone
else is using it, you have to look elsewhere.

Yes, this is the case when secondary users are sharing the channel among
themselves.

BUT, the primary user (traditionally a TV station) has precidence over
all the secondary users. You cannot go to the TV station and ask them
to shut down because they are interfering with your wireless, but the TV
station engineer can come to you and demand you shut down if you are
interfering with the primary licensee.

The issue of secondary licensees having to share bandwidth is one of
the reasons why large events get professional frequency coordinators
whose job it is to make all of the different organizations at the event
play nicely together. When this happens, the frequency coordinator is
legally able to tell you what frequencies you can and cannot use.

I seem to recall something
about a beacon, which was intended to reserve a frequency during down
time. That sounds like something that a show or TV crew could afford and
an individual user or small club couldn't.

Hmm... 20 years ago this would have been illegal since it would have been
unattended operation. I'm not sure if it's legal or not now. It is
certainly bad form, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."